BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BOMBAY A BRANCH AT MUDIS POLLACHI TALUK IN COIMBATORE DISTRICT Vs. A T NARAYANASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, owns a tea estate in a place called Mudis in Anai Malais. This is a place where the petitioner's employees and other residents in the locality have their residences and transact their business. With the object of providing entertainment to their own employees and the general public at Mudis, the petitioner constructed a cinema theatre with subsidiary buildings and annexes. THEy had the buildings equipped with fixtures, items of furniture and certain items of machinery and articles to render the theatre fit for projection and exhibition of cinematograph films. THE construction of the theatre was completed in October, 1960. THE fixation of machinery and fittings in the theatre was also proceeding almost to a conclusion. At that time, the petitioner leased out the entire cinema theatre complex to one Narayanaswami Pillai, the respondent in this revision THE lease was for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs. 750. It was extended for a further period of five years on the same rent, but actually the tenant held over and continued in possession even thereafter, paying the same rent as before.

(2.) IN 1972, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the tenant for his eviction from the cinema theatre. The respondent resisted the suit contending that it did not lie. He said that he was a statutory tenant amenable to eviction only under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and not by a civil Court in an ejectment suit. This plea in defence was accepted by the Court and the suit was dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) THE application for fixation of fair rent was opposed by the tenant on the main ground that it was not maintainable. It was contended that the lease of the cinema theatre was exempted by section 30 (iii) of the Act. This plea was rejected by the Rent Controller. He took the view that the tenant was estopped from putting forward such a plea, he having taken up the position in the earlier suit that he was a statutory tenant to whom the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 alone applied. On this basis, the Rent Controller upheld the maintainability of the fair rent application and posted it for further enquiry on merits. This order on preliminary issue as to jurisdiction was taken on appeal by the tenant. THE appellate authority disagreed with the decision of the Rent Controller and upheld the tenant's objection. THE appellate authority held that even though in the earlier suit the tenant had relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and had pleaded it as a bar to the maintainability of the suit, he was not estopped from putting forward the contention in the present proceedings that the lease in his favour was exempt from section 30 (in) of the Act. THE appellate authority relied on the principle that there was no estoppel against the statute Proceeding to examine the question whether the lease of the cinema theatre building was covered by the exemption enacted by section 30 (iii) of the Act, as contended for by the tenant, the appellate authority referred to the landlord's averments in the application for fixation of fair rent, and the detailed description given therein of the buildings, fixtures, and the items of machinery in the premises. On a consideration of the subject-matter of the lease and its nature in the light of those very averments, the appellate authority held that section 30 (iii) of the Act clearly applied to the instant case In that view, he dismissed the petitioner's application for fair rent as incompetent.